ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

40A(3) of the Act is deleted. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8.1 Before us, no material has been placed on record by the Revenue demonstrating that the decision of the Tribunal in own case of the assessee as discussed above has been set aside/stayed or overruled by the Higher Judicial Authorities. Before

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

40A(3) of the Act is deleted. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8.1 Before us, no material has been placed on record by the Revenue demonstrating that the decision of the Tribunal in own case of the assessee as discussed above has been set aside/stayed or overruled by the Higher Judicial Authorities. Before

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

40A(3) of the Act is deleted. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8.1 Before us, no material has been placed on record by the Revenue demonstrating that the decision of the Tribunal in own case of the assessee as discussed above has been set aside/stayed or overruled by the Higher Judicial Authorities. Before

ACE DEVELOPERS ,MANGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 , MANGALURU

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

40A(3) of the Act is deleted. This ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8.1 Before us, no material has been placed on record by the Revenue demonstrating that the decision of the Tribunal in own case of the assessee as discussed above has been set aside/stayed or overruled by the Higher Judicial Authorities. Before

RAKESH GANAPATHY ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(3) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

7 of 15\nITA No.887/Bang/2024\nSri Rakesh Ganapathy, Bangalore\nprovisions of the section 269SS of the Act accepted the sale\nconsideration in cash. On identical set of facts, the coordinate bench\nof ITAT, Bangalore in the case of Smt. Pushpalatha Vs. ITO reported\nin (2024) 165 taxmann.com 767 has held that where the assessee\nsold a property and received cash

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Development Company reported in 62 taxmann.com 650. ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore Page 5 of 15 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, held the law expressed in Lancy construction (supra) case is no more a good law. He thus submitted that the ratio cannot be followed pursuant to view taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Development Company reported in 62 taxmann.com 650. ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore Page 5 of 15 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, held the law expressed in Lancy construction (supra) case is no more a good law. He thus submitted that the ratio cannot be followed pursuant to view taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Development Company reported in 62 taxmann.com 650. ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore Page 5 of 15 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, held the law expressed in Lancy construction (supra) case is no more a good law. He thus submitted that the ratio cannot be followed pursuant to view taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Development Company reported in 62 taxmann.com 650. ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore Page 5 of 15 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, held the law expressed in Lancy construction (supra) case is no more a good law. He thus submitted that the ratio cannot be followed pursuant to view taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Development Company reported in 62 taxmann.com 650. ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore Page 5 of 15 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, held the law expressed in Lancy construction (supra) case is no more a good law. He thus submitted that the ratio cannot be followed pursuant to view taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

SRI MUNIRAJU KEMPANNA ,BANGALORE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), BANGALORE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

Housing Development Company reported in 62 taxmann.com 650. ITA Nos.1164 to 1170/Bang/2022 Sri Muniraju Kempanna, Bangalore Page 5 of 15 Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, held the law expressed in Lancy construction (supra) case is no more a good law. He thus submitted that the ratio cannot be followed pursuant to view taken by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX LTU , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

house Production 10.33 7. Cosmic Global 11.27 8. Wisec Global Limited 0.14 9. Techprocess solutions Ltd. 4.40 Arithmetical Mean 12.50% 23. The TPO accepted three comparables highlighted above i.e., Informed Technologies India Ltd., Jindal Intellicom Limited and IT(TP)A Nos.844 & 932/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 53 Accentia Technologies and rejected the remaining 6 comparables selected by the Assessee

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (LTU) , BANGALORE vs. M/S DELL INTERNATIONAL SERVICES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Ms. Padmavathy Sit(Tp)A No.844/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Joint Vs. M/S.Dell International Services India Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), No.12/1, 12/2A, 13/1A, Divyashree Gardens, Challagutta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent It(Tp)A No.932/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S.Dell International Services Vs. The Joint Commissioner India Private Limited, Of Income Tax, Ltu, (For The Merged Entity Dell India Bangalore. Private Limited), Bangalore – 560 071. Pan : Aaach1925Q Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri T. Suryanarayana, Advocate Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2022

house Production 10.33 7. Cosmic Global 11.27 8. Wisec Global Limited 0.14 9. Techprocess solutions Ltd. 4.40 Arithmetical Mean 12.50% 23. The TPO accepted three comparables highlighted above i.e., Informed Technologies India Ltd., Jindal Intellicom Limited and IT(TP)A Nos.844 & 932/Bang/2017 Page 17 of 53 Accentia Technologies and rejected the remaining 6 comparables selected by the Assessee

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KEDRA,UDUPI vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE - 1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

property. I think, this is one of the key sections that should help us to defeat the free play of unaccounted money and cheating of the Government." Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible

M/S. DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA,MANGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE -1, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

property. I think, this is one of the key sections that should help us to defeat the free play of unaccounted money and cheating of the Government." Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

property. I think, this is one of the key sections that should help us to defeat the free play of unaccounted money and cheating of the Government." Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible

DAKSHINA KANNADA NIRMITHI KENDRA ,MANGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1),, MANGALURU

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

property. I think, this is one of the key sections that should help us to defeat the free play of unaccounted money and cheating of the Government." Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible

M/S. UDUPI NIRMITHI KENDRA,UDUPI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (EXEMPTIONS) CIRCLE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessees in all the assessees’ appeals are dismissed except for assessment year

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

property. I think, this is one of the key sections that should help us to defeat the free play of unaccounted money and cheating of the Government." Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible